Is abortion practical?

[needimprovement]

Some people said the word "practical" has widely know definitions that don't require philosophy to be understood while some people asserted that anything and everything is philosophical.

 

I look at this in two points -- the definition of the word didn't just appear in nature. Secondly, it's not the definition but the application of the word.

 

Is abortion practical? Science cannot tell us. Nor can the dictionary.

 

 

What are your thoughts on this?

[pioneer]

Abortion is practical, in the same way a mop is practical if you kick over a bucket of dirty water. If one was more careful, not to kick over the bucket, then the practicality of the mop for this particular application becomes sort of a moot point. A first aid kit on hand can be practical when a clumsy person is playing with sharp knives. Having a tow truck follow a teenage driver can be practical, if they are easily distracted and tend to get into many accidents. Such practical things save time. Abortion becomes practical when humans lack the forethought to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

 

If we wanted to make a mop less practical for cleaning up buckets of spilled water, one way would be to teach the clumsy child to be careful. This requires that they pay more attention and not just wander about the room, with their head in the clouds. One way is to have the child clean up their own mess, so the amount of effort needed to clean up the mess, makes them think a little more about the consequences of being clumsy. If mother has the mop always ready, and is willing to mop, her clumsy child has no need to learn. Mother may then invest in better mops to be practical.

 

In culture, one side wants mother to have her mop ready on demand. The other side, is more practical to the needs of clumsy children, and tries to give the child more responsibility for its actions, so it can see the cause and effect. Letting the child stew over and try to clean their mess, can be an educational experience. Mother can complete the clean-up, but her child will benefit if she is not too quick to avoid her child learning anything.

 

Abortion is big business. It is like a cleaning business with mops for hires. If you were a cleaning service, your favorite clients will have many clumsy children. You may not want these children to learn since this would create a conflict with the needs of your growing business. This would not be a practical business move. A fast food restaurant does not benefit by limiting portions based on the weight of their customers. Ironically, their best customers tend to be those who eat a little too much out of impulse.

Edited October 12, 2010 by pioneer

[Sisyphus]

 

Abortion is big business.

 

Yeah, it's all a plot of those fatcats at Planned Parenthood.

 

needimprovement, why is this in the ethics section? And is this topic about what the word "practical" means, or is it about abortion? If it's the former, then I can tell you that abortion is a terribly "impractical" example to use, since it will inevitably overwhelm the thread. And if it's the latter, then doesn't not knowing what practical means make it a nonsense question?

[lemur]

Pioneer, I don't know if your analogy ultimately applies "in practice" but I found it very insightful and plausible. Typically any time better safety features are added to a technology, it's usage becomes more reckless. More cars have been hit by trains since the introduction of the flashing lights and automatic barriers. People drive faster and get in more accidents since the introduction of seat belts, air-bags, etc. Why wouldn't the same be true of abortion? There were always techniques for aborting pregnancies before it was legal and medicalized, but legalization and medicalization has added some safety that wasn't there before, I think. So why wouldn't you expect that at least some people would behave more recklessly because of an enhanced sense of security in doing so? On the other hand, would it really be worth it to drive it underground again to make people more cautious with their sexual risk-taking?

 

The part that is impractical and very sad, imo, is that the fact that so many people fight for abortion rights must give some young people the idea that abortion is not a potentially traumatic experience (I know I never thought it was when I was young). So I think some young people almost long to go through an abortion thinking that it will prove that they are really adults, but then once they actually have to deal with the emotions of it they realize that it's not ever something you would do if you could avoid it - but by then it's too late. I don't know if this is the case for everyone, since I have heard some people say that abortion can be totally non-traumatic but I know at least some people go through a lot of (post traumatic) stress and feelings of guilt,etc. and it would just be nice for those people if they had some forewarning.

[Mr Skeptic]

Science can't tell us what "practical" means, that is just a word that we can define to mean anything we wish. But once given a certain definition and the relevant value judgments, science can certainly decide whether abortion is practical or not. In my opinion, abortion is not practical compared to birth control, and abortion is practical compared to raising an unwanted child. I know people disagree with both of those statements, since it really depends on how you are defining practical and on some value judgments.

[Moontanman]

Some people said the word "practical" has widely know definitions that don't require philosophy to be understood while some people asserted that anything and everything is philosophical.

 

I look at this in two points -- the definition of the word didn't just appear in nature. Secondly, it's not the definition but the application of the word.

 

Is abortion practical? Science cannot tell us. Nor can the dictionary.

 

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

 

Well it's certainly cost effective...

[needimprovement]

IMHO, the unborn child shares in the mystery of human life. because human life is a gift from God, it is not ours to dispose of as we please. Ultimately, we do not belong to ourselves but to God who created us from nothing.

 

it is true that the unborn child has but begun to develop, but this is no justification for abortion. The unborn child is not fully developed but niether is anyone on earth. each of us is in a different stage of growth and development on a journey toward final perfection. It is not for us to say that just becuase the unborn child has barely started on the journey of life, we have the right to fail to repect his/her life.

[Mr Skeptic]

So then religion is the only reason you can think of not to have abortions? But how could you ever convince someone who does not believe in your religion?

[AzurePhoenix]

Is abortion practical?

It can be.

 

1; as pointed out, responsible birth control use is more practical, but in the event of a failure it is a practical consequence of said failure. Assuming that you were using birth control in the first place because you ACTUALLY didn't want to get pregnant and the getting pregnant against your will bit doesn't change your mind about the matter, then an abortion is a perfectly practical way to return to not pregnant status. The only practical way in fact, since our research into time travel seems to have stalled.

 

2; having a baby is a major life changing event, that can have major impacts on careers, education, money and relationships. If these impacts against the status quo are more undesirable than the desirability of having a baby (or undesirability of having an abortion if you're a glass half empty sort've person) then it is practical to make the least undesirable choice.

 

3; an unwanted, traumatic pregnancy (such as through rape or incest) can have a negative psychological impact on someone in which case abortion is a practical solution.

 

4; most obviously, when pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's physical health, abortion is indisputably practical. Hell, it can be argued than any and every pregnancy carries a degree of risk.

 

All of these choices, and others, are entirely dependent on the comparative value of having a baby vs not having a baby from their own personal perspectives. If they believe that the value of a fetus's life outweighs the value of their lifestyle or relationships or health or mental well-being, then to them, an abortion is not practical. If not, then they are entirely practical.

 

IMHO, the unborn child shares in the mystery of human life. because human life is a gift from God, it is not ours to dispose of as we please. Ultimately, we do not belong to ourselves but to God who created us from nothing.

you can give yourself to whatever you like, but it's beyond arrogant to dictate for the rest of "us." I belong to those I love and myself, and if some Great Sky Fairy does exist beyond all odds and reason, I certainly do NOT belong to it, regardless of its hand in the origin of the universe or world or life. Likewise, anything conceived through me is mine until it can think otherwise for itself. If I don't abort it first

 

it is true that the unborn child has but begun to develop, but this is no justification for abortion. The unborn child is not fully developed but niether is anyone on earth. each of us is in a different stage of growth and development on a journey toward final perfection. It is not for us to say that just becuase the unborn child has barely started on the journey of life, we have the right to fail to repect his/her life.

First off, that's a sentimental thought, not a practical one. Given that your thread is focusing on the practicality of abortion, wouldn't it be sensible for you to give practical reasons for your position? What are your own practical arguments against?

[needimprovement]

It can be.

 

1; as pointed out, responsible birth control use is more practical, but in the event of a failure it is a practical consequence of said failure. Assuming that you were using birth control in the first place because you ACTUALLY didn't want to get pregnant and the getting pregnant against your will bit doesn't change your mind about the matter, then an abortion is a perfectly practical way to return to not pregnant status. The only practical way in fact, since our research into time travel seems to have stalled.

 

2; having a baby is a major life changing event, that can have major impacts on careers, education, money and relationships. If these impacts against the status quo are more undesirable than the desirability of having a baby (or undesirability of having an abortion if you're a glass half empty sort've person) then it is practical to make the least undesirable choice.

 

3; an unwanted, traumatic pregnancy (such as through rape or incest) can have a negative psychological impact on someone in which case abortion is a practical solution.

2 and 3 decides to kill the child

 

4; most obviously, when pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's physical health, abortion is indisputably practical. Hell, it can be argued than any and every pregnancy carries a degree of risk.

I'm ok with this. first, the doctor is trying to save BOTH mother and child. The abortion is an unwanted outcome and that argument cannot be use since those cases are so rare. I think there is nothing immoral regarding that case since there was no choice to kill anyone.

 

you can give yourself to whatever you like, but it's beyond arrogant to dictate for the rest of "us." I belong to those I love and myself, and if some Great Sky Fairy does exist beyond all odds and reason, I certainly do NOT belong to it, regardless of its hand in the origin of the universe or world or life. Likewise, anything conceived through me is mine until it can think otherwise for itself. If I don't abort it first

it is more arrogant on their part that they choose who to live or not. it is sheer arrogance to kill a child for one's convinience.

 

there are atheists that are against abortion. abortion is not a religious matter, it is a human matter. no human has a right to take another life.

 

If abortion is practical, murders should not be jailed. it works on the same principle

[Sisyphus]

 

If abortion is practical, murders should not be jailed. it works on the same principle

 

I'd really love for you to explain that logic.

[AzurePhoenix]

2 and 3 decides to kill the child

In fact, 1, 2, 3 and 4 may decide to kill the fetus. You questioned the practicality of having an abortion. The fact is, if your life will be better off according to your personal values and perspective for having terminated the fetus, then regardless of morality, the abortion was still practical. You raised the question of practicality, not right and wrong.

 

Second, you use the term child. This is a very similar question to that of personhood. An embryo or early stage fetus is no more a child than a potato is. Similarly, a young goat or puppy or cub is certainly no less conscious and sentient and intelligent than a human infant for a portion of their lives, but in general most people would not consider a bear cub a child, leading me to suggest that a child is an immature person, which takes you back to the personhood question as I described it in your other thread.

 

When anti-abortionists call an embryo or fetus an "unborn child," it is no different than calling a cow an "unprocessed barbecue dinner." Or you an "unsenesced geriatric." They are defining it based off what it has the potential to perhaps one day become, not what it is.

 

I'm ok with this. first, the doctor is trying to save BOTH mother and child. The abortion is an unwanted outcome and that argument cannot be use since those cases are so rare. I think there is nothing immoral regarding that case since there was no choice to kill anyone.

we're not discussing morality. YOU raised the question of practicality. The morality of an act does not necessarily determine its practical value. Immoral acts can be practical, moral acts can be impractical, and vice versa.

 

it is more arrogant on their part that they choose who to live or not. it is sheer arrogance to kill a child for one's convinience.

Convenience is akin to practicality. You were asking about practicality, and what is convenient is practical. Again, disregarding the fact that a fetus is probably not a child, and that an embryo certainly isn't a child in the first place.

 

Secondly, disregarding that disregardment, an embryo or fetus is a what, not a who. They do not perceive or think, they are not aware of themselves, they have no identity.

 

there are atheists that are against abortion. abortion is not a religious matter, it is a human matter. no human has a right to take another life.

Word yourself carefully. Your wholesale declaration there means we have no right to eat the meat we do, or, assuming vegetarianism, no right to end the life of a plant to eat, or to take antibiotics to kill infectious microbes. I very much doubt that you live entirely off of completely inanimately non-living fare, in which case, based on this moral perspective, only a self-aware Aritificial Intelligence running on any other fuel besides biogenic matter can be purely moral.

 

What I'm guessing you mean, is that no human has the right to take a human life. But then that raises the question, does the human organism warrant this special pleading for no other reason than the fact that it is a member of the human species, or because it might be a person someday?

 

But then, this all hinges then not on life, but on your definition of a person. If you are basing all of this morality on a biblically-based view of personhood that considers a person a being with a soul, rather than based on the secular qualities that I have presented, then how is this not a religious matter? The basis of your moral regard for the matter is religious in origin and nature.

 

If abortion is practical, murders should not be jailed. it works on the same principle

Only if you hold that a lump of cells can be considered a person with all the rights considered due to a person based solely on the pattern of its genome. I personally do not believe that a mindless lump of cells has the same value as a self-aware being capable of enjoying a subjective experience of existence. I believe death takes more from a human or a dolphin than it does a dog or cat, that death from a dog or cat takes more than from a deer or sheep, that the death of an ungulate takes more away from the ungulate than that of a lizard, that the death of a lizard takes more than the death of a fish, and that the death of a fish takes more away from the fish than the death of a half-formed fetus. The only difference is the potential for the fetus to become something that can suffer loss.

 

But regardless of any of these things, they have nothing to do with your own point of Practicality. Regardless of right or wrong, moral or immoral, murder and abortion, despite being very distinctly different things, can both be perfectly practical actions.

[cypress]

So then religion is the only reason you can think of not to have abortions? But how could you ever convince someone who does not believe in your religion?

 

Indeed, there is no morality if there is no accountability to a higher authority.

 

Thus if there is a moral obligation to avoid murder then abortion cannot be practical and if there is not a moral obligation then it is.

[Mr Skeptic]

Indeed, there is no morality if there is no accountability to a higher authority.

 

I think lots of religious people will be annoyed at you claiming that God does not have morality.

[AzurePhoenix]

Indeed, there is no morality if there is no accountability to a higher authority.

Utterly, quantifiably false. Morals can be and are derived from the interpersonal interactions between the individuals that make up any social group. There may be no ultimate eternal consequences on the scale of the universe, but indivudals are still held accountable for their actions by both the material consequences of their actions and the response of their society.

 

Thus if there is a moral obligation to avoid murder then abortion cannot be practical and if there is not a moral obligation then it is.

Also false. If there is anything to be gained from not carrying a baby to term, and the gains are considered greater than the costs by the people directly involved, then abortion can be perfectly practical even if the persons involved consider it immoral themselves. You cannot deny that people often commit acts that even they themselves consider immoral for the sake of of the practical concern of pressing necessity or desire. Extreme and obvious examples of course are demonstrated in war, but its equally true on the everyday scale from not informing a store clerk that they accidentally gave you back too much change, or having an abortion. Edited October 16, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[Sisyphus]

Indeed, there is no morality if there is no accountability to a higher authority.

 

I think that claim is demonstrably false, both empirically and logically. The closest statement that I would say is even plausible is that some people find it difficult to be moral unless they believe their morality is externally imposed by some authority holding them "accountable." (But is that even morality, then?)

 

Thus if there is a moral obligation to avoid murder then abortion cannot be practical and if there is not a moral obligation then it is.

 

Again with this "practical." The way needimprovement and now you are using it doesn't seem to make any sense. Would "morally correct" make more sense in that sentence? If that is what you meant, then I hope you realize it is only accurate if you've already equated abortion with murder.

[random]

As knowledge is gained the more it is sought. When we were incapable of terminating pregnancy we were as nature intended but now that we can tamper the more we wish to do so. Is it a better decision? Well "as nature intended" an unwanted baby is abandoned to die. Though rare in the wild world it does happen. This imply's to me that even in a lower intelligence scale or instinctual behaviour if you will.........that we are capable of independent thought to serve our own basic need for survival. Abortion just makes it easier to follow that impulse to survive and avoid the stressor chemical release that tells us we are doing somthing wrong for us. Then we have the other side of the coin, In our natural state , as intended, it would be a drastic measure to abandon off spring to death such as a famine. It offers the question........what are we doing so stressful and harmful to our bodies to warrant the death of our off spring?

 

In my opinion the stress leading to such a drastic solution is what should be eliminated, but then I am anti-abortion.

 

slightly off topic but how do you suppose we learned what each section of the brain controls? That knowledge was around long before we had technology to identify the electrical impulses in specific area's. Someone's NEED to seek knowledge and tamper led to some very brutal surgery. When science causes such horrendous violations to learn what you seek, it is no longer science, abortion should have never been discovered.

 

The first rule of ethics is to do no harm.

[AzurePhoenix]

Seems to be that responsibly utilized abortion can easily reduce suffering. It's like any other technology, none are intrinsically good or bad, but the people who use all of them tend to be morons. Most people would say the coal-power was great, but it's done immense harm, for great gain. Should we have never discovered agriculture? It was certainly responsible for vast amounts of harm to humanity. Easy grain allowed larger, more reliably fed populations of sedentary people, but at the cost of back breaking work, epidemics, crippling poverty, malnutrition, tooth decay and a reduction in life expectancy. I think it can be said that agriculture is incontrovertibly responsible for far more suffering on a far greater scale than abortion ever could be. But that by no means means that we should give it up.

Edited October 16, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[cypress]

Utterly, quantifiably false. Morals can be and are derived from the interpersonal interactions between the individuals that make up any social group. There may be no ultimate eternal consequences on the scale of the universe, but indivudals are still held accountable for their actions by both the material consequences of their actions and the response of their society.

 

What you describe are society norms which are invented and defined by a social group and you are attempting to equate them with morals which are intrinsic.

 

Your challenge is to factually establish these are one in the same. Please do so.

 

To provide a sense of the difficulty of this challenge I offer this: Here is a good discussion indicating that those on both sides these questions of a creator have come to understand that god is a necessary postulate of morality.

 

 

Also false. If there is anything to be gained from not carrying a baby to term, and the gains are considered greater than the costs by the people directly involved, then abortion can be perfectly practical even if the persons involved consider it immoral themselves. You cannot deny that people often commit acts that even they themselves consider immoral for the sake of of the practical concern of pressing necessity or desire. Extreme and obvious examples of course are demonstrated in war, but its equally true on the everyday scale from not informing a store clerk that they accidentally gave you back too much change, or having an abortion.

 

If a particular behavior involves a moral principle, then that behavior is an invariant obligation. Violation of that principle, by it meaning to be moral cannot have value and therefore cannot be practical. That you argue this is false is further indication that morals are not norms established by society, since you argue that violation of a societal norm can be of practical value. In that way your example supports my claim.

Edited October 16, 2010 by cypress

[AzurePhoenix]

What you describe are society norms which are invented and defined by a social group and you are attempting to equate them with morals which are intrinsic.

Those societal norms of which you speak are part of what I'm talking about yes, but they themselves are often a memetic evolution of those intrinsic morals of which you speak. However, my primary focus was in regards to evolutionary social behaviorism in general, which laid down those "intrinsic" moral foundations (thanks to their own practicality) in the first place.

 

Game Theory goes a long way to explain why particular behaviors we consider moral evolve form the social interactions of species, as well as why violations of those broader rules are also an inevitable consequence of the broader moral base in the first place, and why occasionally its advantageous, or practical, to go against the wider social code of conduct. Using this ethological science, predictions are routinely made and these hypothesis often confirmed by observation of the concept put into practice by various organisms.

 

To provide a sense of the difficulty of this challenge I offer this: Here is a good discussion indicating that those on both sides these questions of a creator have come to understand that god is a necessary postulate of morality.

I'll take a look after work.

 

If a particular behavior involves a moral principle, then that behavior is an invariant obligation. Violation of that principle, by it meaning to be moral cannot have value and therefore cannot be practical. That you argue this is false is further indication that morals are not norms established by society, since you argue that violation of a societal norm can be of practical value. In that way your example supports my claim.

The fundamental failure of your argument is the baseless assumption of the necessity of moral invariance. Nothing supports your claim. In the end, all morality breaks down to is which social behaviors prove to be the most effective at maintaining long-term evolutionary stability.

[ydoaPs]

To provide a sense of the difficulty of this challenge I offer this: Here is a good discussion indicating that those on both sides these questions of a creator have come to understand that god is a necessary postulate of morality.

 

They would be incorrect.

 

Morality can be summed up as what we 'ought' to do. Some people like to dwell on the problem of not being able to derive an 'ought' from an 'is', but I don't actually see it as a problem.

 

We may not be able to derive an ought from an is, but we can derive an "ought, if" from an "is". It is merely a matter of observing the conditions and determining the necessary course to meet the desired outcome. We are social animal, and as such, benefit from peace(at the least within our tribe). If we want an effective society, we ought foster peace. People do respect others more when they are given respect. If you want to be respected, you ought respect others. etc

[pioneer]

Practical science, such as engineering, tries to find ways to do things with the most efficiency and lowest cost.

 

For example, it may e practical to use a shovel to dig a hole instead of using your hands. An engineer will look at this and then attempt to do the same thing even faster, easier and cheaper. He may then invent the back-hoe.

 

Abortion is not cheap in terms of social cost, even it it is practical. The engineer would find ways to lower all these costs. Sometimes this requires reverse engineering, where you find source of the costs and then figure out how to lower or eliminate these. This may result in a new technology. Not getting knocked up can do this. This is more practical than abortion, since cost has been lowered. If one is not very practical, cost and inefficiency is of no concern. The abortion shovel works. But the engineer prefers efficiency so the careful backhoe which save time, money and resources, would be a more practical choice.

Edited October 17, 2010 by pioneer

[cypress]

Those societal norms of which you speak are part of what I'm talking about yes, but they themselves are often a memetic evolution of those intrinsic morals of which you speak. However, my primary focus was in regards to evolutionary social behaviorism in general, which laid down those "intrinsic" moral foundations (thanks to their own practicality) in the first place.

 

Well you have not only failed to equate societal norms with intrinsic moral principles but now you have introduced a metaphysical belief that intrinsic moral principles are a product of evolution. Intrinsic moral principles are taken to be objective truths. Can you factually demonstrate that evolutionary processes necessarily are capable of and actually do generate behaviors that do lead to objective truth?

 

 

Game Theory goes a long way to explain why particular behaviors we consider moral evolve form the social interactions of species, as well as why violations of those broader rules are also an inevitable consequence of the broader moral base in the first place, and why occasionally its advantageous, or practical, to go against the wider social code of conduct.

 

Game theory only works to demonstrate that societal norms arise from social interactions. Since morality is intrinsic objective truth, if anything you are once again arguing that in a society that does not treat the intrinsic morality as such, has no recognizable moral codes, instead they have social norms that change over time and are subject to suspension for practical reasons.

 

 

The fundamental failure of your argument is the baseless assumption of the necessity of moral invariance. Nothing supports your claim.

 

It is a definition. Morals are fixed and they are intrinsic.

 

In the end, all morality breaks down to is which social behaviors prove to be the most effective at maintaining long-term evolutionary stability.

 

Again your argument supports my original contention that without God there are no morals, instead, as you have stated, there are only social behaviors which you describe. You can call social norms morals if you like, but a dog by any other name is still a dog.

 

They would be incorrect.

 

Morality can be summed up as what we 'ought' to do. Some people like to dwell on the problem of not being able to derive an 'ought' from an 'is', but I don't actually see it as a problem.

 

We may not be able to derive an ought from an is, but we can derive an "ought, if" from an "is". It is merely a matter of observing the conditions and determining the necessary course to meet the desired outcome. We are social animal, and as such, benefit from peace(at the least within our tribe). If we want an effective society, we ought foster peace. People do respect others more when they are given respect. If you want to be respected, you ought respect others. etc

 

Where have you demonstrated that this intrinsic sense of right and wrong has society as a source? I don't see any references, no data and no evidence.

[needimprovement]

<snip>

The fundamental failure of your argument is the baseless assumption of the necessity of moral invariance. Nothing supports your claim. In the end, all morality breaks down to is which social behaviors prove to be the most effective at maintaining long-term evolutionary stability.

The first thing you would have to do is define what is "Morality for yourself". Is it conformity only to your own personal code? If so then there is no way you could be "immoral" since you would never "defy" yourself or act against your own "morals" - you would simply change them.

 

The only other option to this is to use some outside sorce as a guide, whether it be "civil law", or some religious or spiritual code which means your "sense of morality" is defined by "letting someone's external interpretation of spirituality (morality) mold my thoughts, emotions, and actions."

 

Belief involves a couple of things that "awareness of the theory" does not.

 

I can be aware of the theory of relativity but in order to believe it I need some other factors such as, knowledge of mathmatics and physics and/or knoweldge of the person advancing the theory and/or an inate sense of understanding of the subject.

 

Believing something is an immoral, that is accepting it as an actual immoral and not just someone's "rule", involves some of the same things. When we are small we are taught by parents what is acceptable and not acceptable. What is right and what is not. Later on, as we grow older we begin to find out the reasons behind why certain things are immoral. We begin to see the adverse effects of immorality and how it hurts others.

 

So when we are little, we are made "aware of the theory" and as we grow we learn the reasons behind the "theory" and come to "belief". This belief then allows us to more carefully and clearly apply the "theory" to given situations.

 

As a simple example. "Lying is wrong". That is what we are told when we are little. That is the theory. Later, as we learn the specifics, we find that not all "Lying" (untruth) is wrong. -- You tell your spouse you feel fine when you don't because you don't want him/her to worry. - Not wrong. Your spouse tells you that he/she didn't get you anything for your birthday so she can really surprise you with something you've been wanting. - Not wrong. Why? No malice behind it. No intent to do harm.

[Moontanman]

As a simple example. "Lying is wrong". That is what we are told when we are little. That is the theory. Later, as we learn the specifics, we find that not all "Lying" (untruth) is wrong. -- You tell your spouse you feel fine when you don't because you don't want him/her to worry. - Not wrong. Your spouse tells you that he/she didn't get you anything for your birthday so she can really surprise you with something you've been wanting. - Not wrong. Why? No malice behind it. No intent to do harm.

 

 

So... you are a pragmatist then?

 

 

 

 

It is a definition. Morals are fixed and they are intrinsic.

 

 

 

 

 

Morals are fixed? By who? Who's morals do we go by? Our own? Isn't that a bit self serving? Humans had civilized communities and moral values long before even the idea of monotheism much less your idea of it. Even in the bible the morality is the religion mirrored the morals of the time not the other way around.

 

Intrinsic to what? I doubt you could get three people to gether at random and have any two of them agree on what is moral in many areas and the smaller the areas become the more different their moral values can vary. Our morals are similar to pack or troop behavior in other animals, just more complex and often quite self serving to the people who want power.